Answers to Those Questions That Keep You Up at Night

Jennifer Hofmann

am a product of Public Television. As a clrild, my hours of daytime television were limited to the line-up on local channel 13. Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood taught me about how to interact and " play nice." Sesame Street introduced counting, the alphabet, and how to identify commonality among objects. (" One of these things is not like the other...")

The Electric Company opened up the world of multiplication tables and gram­mar. Whenever I think of the silent letter E, I recall that words are indeed more powerful than a locomotive.

On Saturday mornings I was fixated not on the cartoons depicting super-heroes and talking animals but on the enchanting series Schoolhouse Rock!. Those wonderful five-minute videos explained the U.S. Constitution, the line-up of the planets in the solar system, and the difference between verbs and adjectives.

I could read just about anything by the age of five. What was missing was reading comprehension. The meaning of the words eluded me. To master that advanced skill, I needed to be exposed to those more expert than I: parents, teach­ers, and older children. Aha! My first (successful) blended learning experience.

Is it any wonder that I embrace the concept of alternative learning tech­nologies? I instinctively knew the value before I was even a teenager. As an adult, however, the results have been far less satisfying.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

Why Is Blended Learning the Current Trend?

Those of us who have been in the training profession for any length of time know that there are always trends and fads. We've been introduced to learning organizations, life­long learning, matrixed teams, learning communities, and a myriad other concepts. Although these practices all have true merit, it takes quite a bit of effort to implement the requisite changes. Worse still, such ideas are often just introduced at the concep­tual level and forgotten about at the next reorganization or management change.

So why is blended learning a true shift in our profession instead of a passing fad? In part, it makes significant economic sense that even the bean counters can see im­mediately. Blended learning also makes sense due to the emergence of geographically dispersed work environments in which staffing levels are constantly being changed. While one part of an organization is being downsized, requiring fewer people to accomplish more work, another part of the organization is growing and hiring.

Gone are the days when we could start all new employees at the same time and conduct two-day orientation programs. Flying instructors and participants around to attend training classes is not economical and is often disruptive to busi­ness and personal relationships. Unlike old training models and expectations, we need our training now! Not a month ago, when we didn't have the need for it; not in two weeks, after we have been struggling and making up ways of getting our work done. Now! There is a true need for just-in-time training.

Traditional classroom approaches are not very flexible, and they are expen­sive. We often wait until we can fill a class before we teach it and hope that the need for the classroom coincides with one being available. The blended learning experience, incorporating synchronous (or live and online) classrooms, makes it cost-effective to train small groups or even provide one-on-one coaching. And these blended classes can be offered more frequently without incurring a lot of extra costs, so a participant who cannot attend a training session on Tuesday or is called away because of an emergency can simply enroll in the next offering.

Since blended learning can have a positive effect the bottom line and can theoretically increase the skills and knowledge of the entire organization, man­agement tends to support and, more important, persist in supporting this shift to nontraditional delivery methods.

A Chronology of Learning Delivery Technologies

For decades, training professionals have had a wide menu of learning tech­nologies from which to choose. Historically, the opportunity to pick and choose from different delivery technologies has been around since at least the 1800s. In

Why Blended Learning Hasn't (Yet) Fulfilled Its Promises

addition to the traditional Socratic and Didactic classroom models, educators have had access to a wide variety of tools that were cutting edge when they were introduced:

1450—-Johannes Gutenberg introduces the first Western printing press

1840—First correspondence study (a secretarial program focused on teaching shorthand)

1900s—Audio recordings

1920s—Radio stations

1930s—Television

1960s—Satellite

1960s—Pre—World Wide Web Internet (text-based databases and discussion boards)

1980s—Fiber optic, audiovisual tech/CD-ROM

1990s to the present—World Wide Web

There was great excitement with the introduction of each of these tech­nologies. We educators and trainers kept thinking that the nut was finally cracked and had discovered the best and most efficient way for people to learn.

Edison, with his invention of the moving picture, predicted that we would eventually never need to attend a class again; we would just need to attend recorded lectures of experts in order to become educated. Sound familiar? We (the training profession) have jumped on similar bandwagons with the introduc­tion of every delivery technology since. Somehow we are still using traditional methods as much as ever before.

Imaginative educators, with the assistance of technical experts, have found ways to exploit and combine (or blend) these technologies to meet their learning objectives.

Where We Are Today?

New conventional wisdom and years of academic research tell us that the best programs are a blend of learning technologies. Blending technologies that take advantage of learning styles, learner convenience, and the best practices of in­structional design enable course developers to create programs that engage the learner and maximize learning retention. For this reason, mixing the best blend of learning technologies is a critical success factor in creating effective learning of

The Handbook of Blended Learning

any kind. And the new online learning technologies are so varied, widely avail­able, and relatively inexpensive that creating this type of effective learning expe­rience is something that almost any content development team can do.

And that's great—except (and this probably won't surprise many of you) it hasn't been working. Of course, this is a generalization. You can turn to many chapters in this book to find examples of successfully blended initiatives that met or exceeded expectations, and we can learn from every one of them. Still, most organizations have yet to break the code and create a successful truly blended experience.

So What's the Problem, Really?

We have identified the need for a blended solution; we have technology that can sup­port a wide variety of designs and delivery methods; we have experts who can create the content; and organizations have budgets supporting the design and development of such programs. So what's the problem with this underwhelming return on in­vestment and expectations on a seemingly-can't-lose scenario?

Actually, there are issues that have historically created roadblocks for blended learning initiatives. These are at the heart of why blended learning has not yet fulfilled its promise of being the best way to deliver information since Gutenberg invented the printing press:

Designing Blended Learning Experiences

• Creating programs without using a formal design process

• Assuming that redesigning an existing program is easier than starting from scratch

• Stringing together stand-alone components into a learning path instead of truly weaving learning experiences together

Facilitating Blended Learning Experiences

• Overemphasizing the live components and undervaluing the self-directed components of the blend

• Lack of experience on the part of the training team in facilitating the blend

• No formal training for the implementation team

Supporting Blended Learning Experiences

• Lack of organizational understanding, and therefore support for blended programs

• Inexperienced learners who have not been taught how to learn online

Why Blended Learning Hasn't (Yet) Fulfilled Its Promises 31

In the rest of this chapter, I address these issues and others, and provide answers to those burning questions that are keeping you up at night.

Designing Blended Learning Experiences

During my early days as a training professional, I employed, I admit, techniques that were less than structured. I worked in financial services and delivered custom software training to medical professionals. Back then I designed programs by talk­ing with the subject matter expert (SME) and " designing" on my best instinct, gen­erally with a positive result. Then my team was told we would be trained to be instructional designers, and we rebelled. How dare they tell us we need to be trained on a function we had been performing well until then?

Twelve years, multiple workshops, and a master's degree in instructional tech­nology later, and now I am not only a convert but an evangelist. So as a card-carrying, blue-blooded instructional designer, I'll tell you that any type of program, from a one-hour " lunch and learn" to a five-day " boot camp, " should be formally designed. I'll tell you that, but realistically I know that doesn't happen.

Experienced designers (cum trainers) often know their audiences and content so thoroughly that they can create effective presentations and training interven­tions with minimal design actually written down on paper. That is not to say that programs are not designed, just that the experienced team always needs to identify subordinate skill objectives and domains of learning formally. Pilots are informal, if they occur at all. Programs can be rapidly created and deployed. When a skilled trainer identifies design gaps by looking at confused or bored faces or in­terpreting negative body language, the design is modified on the fly, and can often go unnoticed by the audience.

We simply cannot get away with this practice when creating a blended learn­ing experience. Lack of a formal instructional design process is much more ob­vious in a nontraditional environment. Even worse, the participants are most often aware of the issues before the blended learning facilitator. Without the im­mediate opportunity for eye contact, body language, or (in self-directed formats) verbal feedback, we cannot easily ascertain if a participant understands in­structions or content. As a result, participants often leave these programs con­fused, unsatisfied, and, worst of all, without the training they need. And we may never know it.

I follow the same instructional systems design (ISD) process I was taught over a decade ago. That happens to be the Dick and Carey model (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2004). (There are others that are just as legitimate.) This ISD process sug­gests the following process for the creation of any training intervention.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

Stages of Instructional Systems Design

1. Identification of instructional goals

2. Subordinate skill analysis

3. Learner and context analysis

4. Construction of performance objectives

5. Identification of assessment techniques

6. Identification of instructional strategies

7. Determination of appropriate delivery media

8. Course development

9. Evaluation

The key here is Step 7: determination of appropriate delivery media. Most of us find this to be quite unusual. We are accustomed to starting a project al­ready knowing what the delivery medium will be. ISD tells us that just about everything is done before you determine what tools will be used to deliver the content.

In a world where our clients/managers/sponsors come to us and say that they need a four-hour Web-based course on how to package cheese effectively, this process seems unrealistic. We talk to our experts, we look at our resources, and we build our courses based on the client's stated specifications. With the time lines and budgets available to us, this seems to be the most expeditious solution.

If we had the time for a formal ISD process, we might often discover that the delivery method requested by the client was not at all appropriate for the audi­ence, content, technology, or budget. This is perhaps the most important argu­ment in favor of formal design. Going down the wrong delivery path results in less-than-optimal learning results and can eventually lead to an undertrained work­force, a drained development budget, and a lack of confidence in the training team.

How Do We Design the Blend?

The most common instructional design question I am asked when discussing blending learning technologies is, " What can be taught online? " Of course, there are some subjects that just don't seem to lend themselves to an online approach. But you don't know what these subjects are until you go though the instructional design process.

Do not restrict your options by looking at an entire subject (or goal). Look at each individual objective. Understanding your objectives gives you the flexibility to determine the best way to deliver each component.

Why Blended Learning Hasn't (Yet) Fulfilled Its Promises 33

Here are a few things to keep in mind when considering your blend:

• Some objectives may be best taught in a traditional classroom, like com­pleting technical lab work. Think of those kinesthetic task-based objectives that can result in disastrous outcomes when not performed well. (I still want my future brain surgeon to practice on real people with a seasoned doctor nearby.)

• Maybe you need an expert available in a live format but don't need true face-to-face interaction. For instance, if there is a need for application demon­strations and instructions, a live, online classroom (synchronous) would work well for the demonstration. In addition, participants might be able to toggle to their desktops to practice the techniques. With such an approach, immediate access to experts is still available, and participants leave this component of the curricu­lum having already applied their new knowledge.

• Objectives requiring memorization and knowledge absorption might lend themselves best to self-directed approaches. These objectives tend to be verbal and are often easy to identify. In a traditional environment, these ver­bal objectives are often taught in a lecture format. Note that when the verbal content is more advanced and clarifications need to made throughout, self-directed may not be the appropriate choice. A good gauge may be to ask your­self how many questions or clarifications are needed when the information is delivered in a traditional format. If it is minimal, self-directed might be a valid alternative.

By carefully determining the most appropriate ways to deliver the content at the objective level, you craft the most effective blend of technologies and can weave together a true curriculum. Be careful not to create individual stand-alone modules, string them together, and call it a blend. The modules need to be tied together and built on one another. Only then is the learning experience complete.

There is no specific recipe for mixing up the ingredients of the blend. The amount of traditional classroom, synchronous classroom, and self-directed work is prescribed by the identified learning objectives and resulting design. And the self-directed work does not need to be expensive multimedia. Work­books, reading assignments, discussion boards, and e-mail are all easy to use, inexpensive to implement, and extremely effective when designed and facili­tated well.

Don't assume it's going to take less time to redesign an existing traditional pro­gram than it would to design a blended program from scratch. Always approach these initiatives from a fresh perspective, and you won't be worried about slaying the sacred cows of successful traditional programs.

34 The Handbook of Blended Learning

What Is the Role of Community in Designing Blended Learning Experiences

One of the most exciting opportunities afforded by blended learning experiences is the opportunity to create learning communities. All of us have participated in traditional learning programs, but how often do we interact with other students after the program is complete? Often we cannot even recall the names of people sitting adjacent to us.

One of the benefits of a blended learning curriculum that includes asynchro­nous collaboration between participants is that they tend to form more long-lasting relationships and rely on each other after the formal experience is over. E-mail, in­stant messaging, and community discussion boards facilitate the participants' seeing each other as resources, especially since communication is only a click away. Earlier, I spoke of learning communities as a potential trendy fad. With the right design, blended learning can turn the jargon of learning communities into a reality.

How Do We Know if the Blend Works?

The last, and ever continuous, step in the ISD model is evaluation, and a critical component of evaluation is piloting. For most of us, creating truly blended expe­riences that are not grounded in the traditional classroom is new. Because of this, a pilot test or sample becomes even more crucial to success.

In such a pilot, you should implement your program including all participant materials, leader materials, and technologies. Use a representative audience as well as facilitators trained in the use of the various delivery technologies. Keep your de­sign team close at hand so it can evaluate the design. Pay special attention to in­structions. This is where many blended programs fall apart. Can participants follow the instructions easily with minimal to no questions? If not, serious consequences will surely ensue. Participants will either stop moving forward with the program or will struggle to try to complete the experience and find it less than satisfying.

Assessment and continuous improvement should continue even once the pro­gram is out of the pilot phase. When problems are identified, they should be fixed and communicated immediately.

Facilitating Blended Learning Experiences

Concurrent with the design process, the training team should be consider­ing another critical success factor: how to facilitate the blended learning experience.

Why Blended Learning Hasn't (Yet) Fulfilled Its Promises

Do not make the assumption that traditional facilitators for a particular sub­ject are the best choices for managing the blended version of the same content. Effective classroom facilitators rely heavily on the ability to manage the room by interpreting eye contact and body language. They may also have a physically an­imated personality that is visually engaging to their audiences. These individu­als have invested quite a bit of their professional credibility in their physical presence.

Online instruction takes the physical language of the classroom away and replaces it with many nonverbal and nonphysical cues that may (in the case of a synchronous classroom) or may not (during self-directed activities) be available in real time. Add to this the need to manage the technical aspects and associated problems that accompany blended learning experiences, and we have truly created a new job description, not simply added to the existing definition of trainer.

Remember that the entire blended learning experience, including the self-directed components, is instructor led. There is a different level of commitment for the blended learning facilitators, who are forced to pay attention to the par­ticipants' welfare before, during, and after all live events. Well-designed partici­pant materials certainly help to manage the process, but the program is not over once the participants leave the building.

A blended solution can contain many components. Asynchronous compo­nents may include technologies ranging from self-directed tutorials to facili­tated discussion boards. Synchronous technologies range from traditional classrooms to virtual online classrooms. We need to be careful not to overem­phasize the live (synchronous) and undervalue the asynchronous components of the blend. All aspects, including assessment, required communication, partici­pation, and exercise completion, need to be considered as important as attend­ing any live (live meaning face-to-face or synchronous online) events. We need to remember to reinforce the blend, so that participants understand the importance as well. Otherwise participants will wait for the live events to obtain the " important stuff, " and the blend will not be successful. The technology, not the implementation, will be seen as ineffective, and future blended learning projects will not be as warmly embraced.

How Do We Get It All Done?

During synchronous interactions, many trainers opt not to take advantage of all of the tools available to increase interaction. They can't see themselves being able to multitask to the extent required, so they limit participant use of chat, white­board tools, and other interactive features of the synchronous classroom. The

The Handbook of Blended Learning

trainer's role in the synchronous classroom is then reduced to pushing content and lecturing instead of facilitating interactions and knowledge sharing.

The self-directed components of the blend pose different problems. It is dif­ficult to keep up with all discussion board postings, required e-mails, off-line tech­nical and instructional support, and the amount of communication needed to keep the participants on track. The solution to this dilemma lies in the idea of team teaching. An assistant trainer (I call this person a producer) can help transform blended programs into trouble-free, interesting, interactive events that keep learn­ers involved and the trainer on track. In short, the trainer can stay focused on con­tent while the producer takes care of everything else. This person does not need to be an expensive resource. I have used training assistants and interns to great re­sult, and at the same time created a job path for these individuals in the training department.

How Do We Teach Our Team?

Because many of the technologies included in a blend are so new and the ways these technologies can be arranged are so varied, a serious concern is the lack of facilitator experience in managing the blend. Without experience as a participant and formal training, facilitators have little choice but to approach the initiative in the same ways as they would a traditional learning experience. They then are left to learn from their mistakes. This can be frustrating for the facilitator and can have a negative impact on results.

To prepare to manage a blended program, new facilitators should:

• Participate in as many blended learning experiences as possible. Enroll in programs that allow them to participate as a learner and experience the same types of problems. This will help them to understand participant questions and frus­trations and deal with them appropriately.

• Learn how to use all of the technologies (" point-and-click" training) that may be included in the blend. The desired level of mastery is the ability of the facilitator to answer participants' technical questions without being able to see their screens. (" Look for the letter A in your whiteboard toolbar, which is located in the upper left corner of the screen. The letter A is located directly under the Help pull-down menu... ")

• Learn how to facilitate the individual technologies. There are nuances that need to be learned and practiced in order to achieve mastery. Facilitat­ing each type of technology is different, and those differences need to be appreciated.

Why Blended Learning Hasn't (Yet) Fulfilled Its Promises 37

• Practice managing the blend. After facilitators have mastered the technol­ogy, they should review the participant guides and leader materials and make sure they understand the exercises and can articulate the connections between the dif­ferent components. When recorded synchronous sessions are available, they should be viewed. The designer should be available to answer questions and the producer available to help prepare.

Train the Trainer Using Blended Learning

I recently created a curriculum for a client that exposes the training team to all of the preparation components mentioned above. Most sessions listed in Table 3.1 are delivered using a synchronous classroom. Sessions 3 and 4 are delivered in a traditional format. All programs are followed by independent work in discussion areas and distributed group work in which small groups create and deliver a blended solution. Virtual office hours are formally scheduled to support the ini­tiative, and all live events are recorded for those who must miss a class. A seventy-five-page participant guide, two textbooks, and a list of online readings support the content. By participating in this program, learners are exposed to (and immersed in) a true blended learning curriculum. The " collaboratory" (session 4) exposes participants to developing these nontraditional programs and provides resources for achieving mastery.

You will notice that modules on designing blended learning are included. It is always a good idea to train the design and facilitation teams together so these individuals mutually understand the strategy for the design and the unique ex­perience of the blended learning facilitator.

Supporting Blended Learning Experiences

Having a robust design and a well-prepared facilitation team are truly critical to the success of the program. In addition, the organization needs to be ready to sup­port all aspects of the blend. Often, implementing blended learning is considered a technology initiative. An organization would be much better served looking at it as a change initiative. Let's face it: someone will be able to make the technology work (if not, it will be replaced). Let information technology worry about tech­nology issues.

We are asking people to teach and learn in very different ways, without prop­erly preparing the organization for this change. The most challenging part of changing the learning culture is impressing on participants that prework and in-tersession work is not optional. We seem to have become a culture that believes that if a particular concept is important, the facilitator will discuss it during the

38 The Handbook of Blended Learning